from the well...-half-the-sentence-has-already-been-served-so... dept

Nearly 13 years after the FBI managed to turn a California cherry picker into a international terrorist, one of its self-created terrorists is about to be turned back into regular California resident, albeit one missing more than a decade from his life.

Hayat went to Pakistan in 2003 to visit his mother and get married. The FBI and prosecutors insisted he went there to train to be a terrorist. When he returned to the US, he was arrested and indicted. Prosecutors tacked on some lying to federal agents charges because of course they did, pushing Hayat's sentence to 24 years.

A federal magistrate on Friday recommended overturning the controversial 2006 conviction of a California man accused of attending a terrorist training camp in Pakistan and plotting an attack in the United States.

Hamid Hayat, now 36, who was then a young cherry-picker from Lodi, has served about half his 24-year sentence.

But U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes said he likely never would have been convicted were it not for the inexperience of his defense attorney, who failed to call alibi witnesses.

Hayat's lawyer was clearly inexperienced, having never defended a client during a criminal trial before. The results speak for themselves. Judge Barnes' examination of the case shows Hayat was possibly coerced into a false confession and had a decent alibi for his visit to Pakistan that -- if explored more fully -- would likely have shown the FBI's speculations about his reason for returning to Pakistan were wrong.

His attorneys argue that much of the evidence used against him was faulty, including prosecution claims that Hayat attended a terror training camp in Balakot, Pakistan, in 2003 and 2004 – a facility they say had been shut down before Hayat even got to Pakistan.

Hayat's confession was obtained during a "marathon" questioning session by FBI agents. This apparently included a special agent lying about the evidence the FBI had on Hayat's supposed terrorist training.

According to court testimony, the Hayats were interviewed twice by the FBI. The first time, they both denied they knew anything about terrorism. But during a second interview at Sacramento FBI headquarters, after many hours of grilling without a lawyer, Hamid Hayat changed his story and confessed he attended a terrorist training camp for about three months. The jury asked for a read-back of FBI Special Agent Harry Sweeney’s trial testimony.

Sweeney testified that Hamid Hayat admitted to going to the camp after Sweeney asked him, “Would there be any reason why we would have a satellite image of you at a camp in 2003?”

Under cross-examination, Sweeney acknowledged there was no such photo.

Unfortunately, there's nothing illegal about federal agents lying to suspects during questioning. But there's certainly a law against lying to federal agents. The background of the case suggests the FBI may have been looking for something -- anything -- to justify its infiltration of a local mosque by one its surprisingly-expensive informants.

Naseem Khan claimed to have seen four of the world's most-wanted terrorists in Lodi, California. Over the course of three years, the FBI paid Khan $230,000 to infiltrate a local mosque, despite discovering his claims of seeing top world terrorists were completely false. It was Khan who suggested Hayat visit a terrorist training camp while visiting Pakistan. The government apparently had no evidence Hayat ever visited a training camp, relying almost solely on a confession that appears to have been coerced.

The court says there's not much here that makes the FBI look like a competent anti-terrorism force. There's a questionable confession, an even more questionable informant telling people to engage in terrorist activities, and a bunch of speculation about Hayat's activities while not under direct surveillance. As the judge points out, citizens shouldn't be locked up for things the FBI THINKS they may have done. More evidence is needed and a more competent attorney might have been able to stop this farce before it took more than a decade away from Hamid Hayat.

from the wherein-'thwart'-means-'standing-by-idly-while-events-take-their-cou dept

The enthusiastic republishing of the FBI's narrative does little more than rewrite the DOJ's press release. Very few have dug into the charging documents. If they had, they might not have depicted a terrorist attack that was never going to happen as somehow being "thwarted" by the arrest of a 26-year-old man reeling from the recent loss of his children in a custody battle.

According to the criminal complaint [PDF], Everitt Jameson was planning to detonate explosives at Pier 39 in San Francisco, a popular destination for tourists. The lead-up to Jameson's arrest (and supposed "thwarting") was filled with FBI informants and undercover agents, but not a single actual member of a terrorist group.

The investigation began with a paid informant passing on Jameson's Facebook activity to the FBI.

On September 19, 2017, a credible FBI Confidential Human Source (CHS) who has accurately reported to the FBI on national security matters in the past, reported a suspicious Facebook account. The Facebook persona was Everitt Aaron Jameson, vanity everittj. The Facebook id # was hidden. The CHS reported Jameson was "Liking" and "Loving" posts that were pro-ISIS and pro-terrorism. To provide an example of the types of posts Jameson was "Liking" and "Loving" during this time period, the CHS reported to the FBI that Jameson "loved" a post on November 29, 2017 that is an image of Santa Claus standing in New York with a box of dynamite. The text of the post reads, "ISIS post image of Santa with dynamite threatening attack on New York." The Propaganda poster shows Santa Claus standing on a roof next to a box of dynamite looking out over a crowd of shoppers with the words "We meet at Christmas in New York… soon." Under this post, Jameson selected the "Like" option and then selected the "Heart" option to signify that he "Loved" the post.

As we've noted before, "liking" social media posts is not the same thing as endorsing the content. Jameson may have liked the sentiments expressed, but it doesn't immediately follow he would be willing to engage in violent acts of terrorism. That's not what the FBI thought, though. Rather than monitor the account and open a preliminary investigation, the FBI decided to get involved. Undercover agents began communicating with Jameson pretending to be ISIS members. Over the next couple of months, agents frequently exchanged messages and met with Jameson, nudging him towards committing an act of terrorism.

Jameson pledged his limited utility to the cause, fulfilling the expected "material support" charges by offering use of his tow truck and his (very brief) background as a US Marine. (Jameson was discharged shortly after basic training for failing to disclose his asthma.) He also said he could kick in about $400 a month.

Jameson did state he was considering something along the lines of the San Bernardino shootings or the New York attack in which a vehicle was driven into a crowd. But the FBI was more interested in getting Jameson to build bombs. Jameson was compliant, but seemingly unable to actually acquire the supplies to build them.

UCE2 asked Jameson what assistance the UCE2 could provide. Jameson stated that he needed ammunition, powder, tubing, and nails. When asked what kind of a weapon he would need, Jameson noted that he would prefer an assault rifle. He also explained that he was trained in both the M-16 and an AK-47 rifle. Jameson also stated that he needed timers and remote detonators (presumably for the explosive charges Jameson previously described to the UCE2). Jameson said that he could get the PVC pipe, nails, and powder (presumably, black powder used for commercial explosives and ammunition).

That conversation happened on December 16th. On December 18th, no further preparation for the attack had been done by Jameson. The undercover agent tried to arrange another meeting about the attack plans, but was rebuffed by Jameson.

Later during the evening, the UCE2 contacted Jameson to discuss arranging a follow-up meeting. Jameson responded by indicating that he had been "very busy tonight." Moreover, Jameson told the UCE2, "I also don't think I can do this after all. I've reconsidered." The UCE2 stated, "We only can do Allahs will," and Jameson replied "In Sha Allah one day I can. But I can't."

Rather than keep tabs on the little terrorist that couldn't, the FBI decided to call in its markers. It acquired a search warrant for Jameson's residence one day later. The search uncovered some handguns, a rifle, 13 rounds of ammunition, and four fireworks. The feds also found his handwritten note pledging allegiance to ISIS and Jameson's will, signed and executed on November 11th.

As far as the complaint states, Jameson was never in contact with any suspected ISIS members. All discussions about a terrorist attack involved at least one FBI undercover agent. Jameson himself took himself out of play by stating he couldn't go through with the planned attack. This statement was made before supplies were gathered or a storage area obtained to assemble and store the bombs. The "terrorist" who "thwarted" his own attack sounds very much like a person looking for some sort of direction in his life after a traumatic divorce and chose exactly the wrong sort of people to identify with. That his closest contacts during this period were FBI agents interested in securing a terrorism bust does little to further the narrative of ticking terrorist time bomb disarmed at the last minute by heroic G-men.

One wonders how many discussions about attacking America Jameson would have engaged in if simply left alone. Or if he would have come up with plans to blow up part of San Francisco if he hadn't found supposedly like-minded ISIS supporters to talk to. It's impossible to say Jameson never would have engaged in violence, but the criminal complaint shows Jameson did nothing more than click Facebook buttons before the FBI got involved. And for that, he's probably going to go to prison for a long time. It seems Jameson would have benefited from a few more positive role models. But steering confused and depressed people away from sympathizing with ISIS doesn't make headlines. And it certainly doesn't help keep the lights on at the FBI.

from the FBI-takes-a-pass dept

Given the FBI's skill at cultivating terrorists to arrest and indict, you'd think it would have done a better job handling the planned terrorist attack in Garland, Texas. The two shooters were killed by local police before they could kill any attendees at a "Draw Mohammed" event thrown by anti-Muslim activist (and bumbling litigant) Pam Geller.

When faced with suspects with coherent plans and firepower, the FBI simply motors away from ground zero. Literally. A 60 Minutes investigation into the Garland shooting reveals the FBI was on top of the suspects for several years, but failed to prevent the attack from being carried out. Elton Simpson, one of the shooters, was in constant contact with an FBI informant, and had been tracked on and off by the feds since 2006.

Dabla Deng spent three years pretending to be Simpson’s friend, and was paid $132,000 by the FBI. He taped more than 1,500 hours of their conversations and finally recorded him talking about traveling overseas to wage jihad. Simpson lied to the FBI about it and got three years probation.

The time and money spent were ultimately useless. The FBI closed its file on Simpson in 2014, but reopened it after Simpson began talking up terrorism in social media posts. Less than three weeks before the 2015 Garland attack, the FBI was back undercover, in contact with Simpson. These details were uncovered by a lawyer for Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem. Kareem was a friend of Simpson's and was convicted on material support and conspiracy charges. Multiple pages of declassified text messages not only showed the FBI was in contact with Simpson in the weeks leading up to the attack, but was actually present at the event that drew the attack.

[T]his past November, [attorney Dan] Maynard was given another batch of documents by the government, revealing the biggest surprise of all. The undercover FBI agent was in a car directly behind Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi when they started shooting.

Faced with an actual terrorist attack, the FBI agent took off, leaving local police to fend off the well-armed attackers. The undercover agent was arrested at gunpoint by cops a short distance away.

Now, there may be legitimate reasons for an undercover not to get involved in a shootout. He may not have had the proper training or the weapons on hand to make a difference. But it's definitely not a good look to arrive on scene of an attack featuring suspects you're intimately familiar with and drive away when the bullets start flying. Especially not when the agent has stopped long enough to see the suspects exit their vehicle with weapons and, for some reason, to take a cell phone photo of the two people who would be shot at first: a school security guard and a local police officer.

The FBI won't explain what happened or why it happened. It refuses to discuss the closed investigation and claims no one at the agency had any advance knowledge of the planned attack -- which presumably includes the special agent working undercover and present at the scene.

This would be the same agent whose text messages have been turned over to attorney Dan Maynard. Those appear to show the FBI had some advance knowledge of the planned shooting. The only obvious explanation for the FBI's claim that there was no foreknowledge (other than the agency is just lying) is that it saw the communications but wasn't convinced they were serious enough to act on.

There's a lot of gray area between talking big and being willing to carry out a terrorist attack. The FBI is never going to be able to make the correct judgment call in every situation. The problem is the FBI definitely appears to prefer pushing trash talkers into making terrorist attack supply runs at the local Wal-Mart or plane tickets to Turkey and busting them as soon as it ticks enough boxes for a successful prosecution. In doing so, its anti-terrorism skills aren't improving. Real threats will slip through while people who would find it difficult to hold down a job, much less plan and carry out a terrorist attack, are being indicted, convicted, and served up as testaments to the FBI's anti-terrorism skills.

But in Garland, Texas -- where real terrorists with a sizable supply of weapons and a coherent attack plan opened fire -- the FBI was not only on the scene, but left as soon as it became obvious there was an attack taking place. No matter the reason, this isn't a good look for an agency whose counterterrorism reputation is built on dozens of super-safe busts.

from the and-threatened-his-family,-which-is-a-nice-use-of-gov't-resources dept

Perhaps no entity generates more fake news than the FBI's counterterrorism unit. Several times a year, a press release is issued announcing the bust of a so-called terrorist. Almost invariably, the "terrorist" has been handcrafted through the relentless intercession of undercover FBI agents.

Robert Lorenzo Hester, Jr., 25, of Columbia, Missouri, was charged in a criminal complaint with attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), a designated foreign terrorist organization. Hester was charged in federal court based on his role in making preparations to launch a terrorist attack with persons he believed were associated with ISIS, who were actually undercover law enforcement personnel.

Robert Lorenzo Hester of Columbia, Missouri, didn’t have the $20 he needed to buy the 9-volt batteries, duct tape, and roofing nails his new FBI friends wanted him to get, so they gave him the money. The agents noted in a criminal complaint that Hester, who at one point brought his two small children to a meeting because he didn’t have child care, continued smoking marijuana despite professing to be a devout Muslim.

This is the supposed terrorist who would have killed hundreds of people on President's Day if the FBI hadn't stepped in to intervene. But the FBI's "intervention" looks suspiciously like "encouragement…" or "entrapment."

[T]he only contact Hester had with ISIS was with the two undercover agents who suggested to him that they had connections with the group. The agents, who were in contact with him for five months, provided him with money and rides home from work as he dealt with the personal fallout of an unrelated arrest stemming from an altercation at a local grocery store.

Undercover agents began working with/on Hester shortly after this arrest. Seizing on his anti-government social media posts [good lord], the agents told Hester they could put him in touch with someone with direct terrorist connections. This "direct connection" was just another FBI agent. It was the FBI that suggested acquiring weapons. And it was the FBI who chose to take Hester seriously, despite his nonexistent terrorist group ("the Lion Guard") sporting a name that had been pulled from a cartoon his children watched.

It was also an FBI agent who suggested that even thinking about planning a terrorist attack was an irrevocable act -- and that entertaining second thoughts about committing acts of violence would be rewarded with acts of violence.

The agent cautioned Hester that once he decided to proceed there was “no turning back.” He also told Hester that under no circumstances was he to do conduct any sort of operation on his own. The agent, referred to in the complaint as UC-2, then “threatened to come back and find HESTER if he learned that HESTER reneged on the promise. For emphasis, and for the purpose of mitigating the security threat posed by HESTER, UC-2 displayed a knife and reminded HESTER that UC-2 knew where HESTER and his family lived, among other forceful words.”

After threatening his family, FBI agents continued to push Hester forward with "his" plan to commit an act of terrorism. His plans required $20 worth of supplies… which Hester couldn't afford. But Hester did promise to be more materially-supportive in the near future:

Hester promised that he would help buy ammunition for the weapons once he had received the money from his tax refund.

A lot of the FBI's standard counterterrorism M.O. is on display here. The agency prefers to work with people in desperate or dire circumstances -- people who don't have the financial independence or mental toughness needed to create and carry out plans on their own. And when they get cold feet, agents apparently suggest their dire circumstances will be made even worse. The end result is the government congratulating itself for rounding up "terrorists" that likely never would have gone beyond anti-government Facebook posts if they'd been left alone. And for the few who appear capable of committing violent acts, the government pushes these people towards extremism rather than attempt to pull them back from this precipice.

from the entrapment-will-continue-until-national-security-improves dept

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld [PDF] a terrorism conviction, despite its own concerns about the government's behavior during the investigation. (h/t Brad Heath)

Mohamed Osman Mohamud appealed his conviction for attempting to detonate a bomb during a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon, raising several arguments -- one of those being entrapment. But the court had this to say about the FBI's sting operation.

The panel held that the district court properly rejected Mohamud’s defense of entrapment as a matter of law. The panel could not say that no reasonable jury could have concluded that Mohamud was predisposed to commit the charged offense. Rejecting Mohamud’s alternative argument that the case should be dismissed because the government overreached in its “sting,” the panel wrote that while the government’s conduct was quite aggressive at times, it fell short of a due process violation.

As we've noted here before, courts have given the government plenty of leeway in its investigations. Entrapment is a popular defense but even the DEA's predilection for setting up desperate rubes to rob fake stash houses (and asking for sentences based on imaginary quantities of nonexistent drugs) has seldom been troubled by defendants' challenges. The courts have also ordained much, much more questionable tactics, like the FBI's creation of a child porn catalog it mailed to sting targets -- even going so far as to "fulfill" the recipients' orders. This predated the FBI's current courtroom difficulties resulting from its stint as the administrators of a seized child porn website, which it kept operational for two weeks while it deployed its hacking tool.

Mohamud's experience with the FBI began in an unlikely way: with a phone call to the agency from his parents.

His father begged him to stay in the United States, but Mohamud told him it was too late—he had his passport, visa, and ticket ready to go. When his parents confirmed that his passport was missing, they feared that Mohamud might return to Somalia, his place of birth. And when they could not reach Mohamud, they called the FBI and asked an agent to stop their son from leaving the country. Eventually, Mohamud’s mother got in touch with her son, scolded him, and brought him home. Mohamud did not actually have a visa or plane ticket, and he returned his passport to his parents.

A few days later, Mohamud’s father called the FBI agent back and told him that Mohamud had agreed to finish college and would not leave the country until he graduated. He also explained that his son had wanted to go to Yemen to study Arabic and Islam. Mohamud’s father forwarded the FBI an email from his son about a school in Yemen, which allowed the FBI to identify Mohamud as the user of the truthbespoken email account.

Using that email account, the FBI began looking into Mohamud. One of the investigative tools it utilized was communications collected by the NSA's Section 702 program. The use of these communications was also challenged by Mohamud.

The FBI's initial impression of Mohamud, after being contacted by his parents, was that he was no threat -- just a mixed-up college kid going through some ideological growing pains. But rather than leave him alone and let his parents keep an eye on him, the FBI decided to make him a sting target. Its first attempt went nowhere. Communications between Mohamud and "Bill Smith" tapered off as Mohamud apparently tried to shift his focus back to his studies.

The FBI kept going. It sent two more informants after Mohamud to determine how serious he was about participating in a terrorist attack. Mohamud seemed enthusiastic about the idea, but the details and funding all came from the undercover agents. This makes it seem unlikely Mohamud would have done anything on his own. Worse, the FBI took a tip from Mohamud's parents and rather than steer him away from terroristic leanings, it decided to turn him into a sting target.

Still, there was no entrapment, according to both courts who have reviewed the case. Mohamud showed his own inclination to commit terroristic acts -- both in terms of previous writings and statements made to undercover agents. Combined with the courts' deference to the means and methods of investigative agencies, Mohamud's entrapment defense fails.

The Section 702 evidence similarly has no effect on Mohamud's conviction. This evidence was introduced belatedly by the government, but the Appeals Court finds its late arrival wasn't prejudicial to Mohamud's defense. It's interesting that it showed up late, considering the government always had access to it. There appears to have been plenty of behind-the-scenes discussion within the government as to whether or not it actually wanted to use this "702-derived" evidence in court.

The introduced 702 evidence poses no Fourth Amendment concerns according to the Ninth Circuit.

Although § 702 potentially raises complex statutory and constitutional issues, this case does not. As explained below, the initial collection of Mohamud’s email communications did not involve so-called “upstreaming” or targeting of Mohamud under § 702, more controversial methods of collecting information. It also did not involve the retention and querying of incidentally collected communications. All this case involved was the targeting of a foreign national under § 702, through which Mohamud’s email communications were incidentally collected.

What Fourth Amendment concerns exist, the court seems barely troubled by them. It trusts the government has procedures in place to minimize incidentally-collected communications and, in any case, would scale back the Fourth Amendment's protections to make room for more national security.

However, the mere fact that more communications are being collected incidentally does not make it unconstitutional to apply the same approach to § 702 collection, though it does increase the importance of minimization procedures once the communications are collected.

[...]

The panel held that Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court-approved targeting and minimization procedures, which were followed in practice, sufficiently protected Mohamud’s privacy interest, in light of the government’s compelling interest in national security.

The court sums everything up this way -- implying that it's still not altogether comfortable with the government's decision to steer an impressionable person down the path towards terrorism, rather than pull him back, especially when the originating tip was a call from concerned parents.

Many young people think and say alarming things that they later disavow, and we will never know if Mohamud—a young man with promise—would have carried out a mass attack absent the FBI’s involvement. But some “promising” young people—Charles Whitman, Timothy McVeigh, and James Holmes, to name a few from a tragically long list—take the next step, leading to horrific consequences. While technology makes it easier to capture the thoughts of these individuals, it also makes it easier for them to commit terrible crimes. Here, the evidence supported the jury’s verdict, and the government’s surveillance, investigation, and prosecution of Mohamud were consistent with constitutional and statutory requirements.

Marcy Wheeler -- covering Mohamud's sentencing two years ago -- sums it up this way, pointing out that the FBI and other government agencies seem more willing to blow taxpayer cash on mostly-pointless prosecution rather than do anything that might actually counter violent extremism.

If the US can’t imagine a better response when a father calls for help but to spend 18 months catching his son a sting, we can roll out CVE [countering violent extremism] programs every other month and we’re not going to earn trust among the communities we need to.

Engaging with communities seems to rarely be an option -- whether it's the FBI or local police department with a long track record of discriminatory policing. Turning the most impressionable members of these communities into informants or sting targets seems to be the only thing the FBI's actually willing to do, which doesn't seem to be having much of an effect on worldwide terrorism.

from the wtf? dept

For a few years now, we've been writing about how the FBI has been arresting a ton of people for "terrorism" who were really guilty of little more than being gullible and naive and pushed by FBI undercover agents and informants into taking part in a plot that wouldn't exist but for the FBI itself. These so-called own plots seem to be a huge part of what the FBI does these days. Somewhat ridiculously, courts have (mostly) allowed these, claiming that if, eventually, the accused person expressed some support for terrorism or terrorist groups, it shouldn't be considered entrapment. But, over and over again, you see cases where it's clearly the FBI doing not just the majority of the plotting, but also pushing and pushing targets to "join" the plot, even when they show sustained resistance. The more details you read about these cases, the more ridiculous they get.

Has the FBI simply lost track of who are real and who are the people it is paying to play a role? Or is it possible someone from another agency, claiming to be FBI, recruited Hendricks (don’t laugh! That’s one potential explanation for Anwar al-Awlaki’s curious ties to US law enforcement, a story that wends its way through a related mosque in VA)?

Sure, maybe Hendricks is making all this up (at the very least, it may necessitate the BoP to protect him in prison since he has now publicly claimed to be a narc). But FBI’s network of informants sure is getting confusing.

Either way, if Hendricks really was an informant, it appears that the "plots" he was engaged in may have been all confidential informants or undercover agents (and possibly one mentally disturbed internet troll).

This sounds like the plot to a potentially entertaining movie -- but back in the real world, it seems pretty fucked up. And it's yet another reminder of just how stupid these FBI "own plots" really are. It doesn't seem to really be about keeping people safe from attacks. Instead it seems to be about figuring out ways to push gullible and naive people to agree to do something stupid so that the FBI can get headlines for "keeping us safe" from attacks that would never actually happen.

from the but-for-the-grace-of-untargeted,-overbudgeted-law-enforcement-agencies-go-we dept

It's not just FBI agents playing with Home-Grown Terrorist™ Erector Sets. It's also Canada's top law enforcement agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. When there apparently aren't enough actual terrorists to be found, agencies like these need to front the $40 at Wal-Mart for terrorist supplies, or dupe someone with an IQ of 51 into becoming the latest Indictment Du Jour.

Despite this, courts have largely gone along with the charade. It's almost impossible for someone to successfully raise an entrapment defense, whether it's a group of senior citizens who've been molded by undercover agents into an ad hoc terror unit or a bunch of easily-impressed thugs being hounded into stealing nonexistent drugs from fake stash houses.

A British Columbia couple convicted of terrorism charges have had their verdicts tossed out in a scathing court decision that flays the RCMP for its “egregious” conduct in manipulating naive suspects into carrying out a police-manufactured crime.

[...]

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Catherine Bruce said the Mounties used trickery, deceit and veiled threats to engineer the terrorist acts for which Nuttall and Korody were arrested on Canada Day three years ago.

The RCMP, like its US equivalent, only seeks the best of the best when attempting to turn citizens into terrorists. In this case, the RCMP found two easy marks -- both heavily dependent on welfare checks and methadone -- and convinced them they were going to be involved in a revolutionary pressure cooker bombing at some point in the future.

Judge Bruce noted that the two suspects contributed almost nothing to the RCMP's plan. In fact, the judge stated that without the RCMP's incredible amount of assistance, any plans to bomb anything likely would never have materialized. The indicted pair weren't exactly self-starters, and the RCMP's undercover agent basically had to act like a maniacal cult leader to get them to do anything at all.

She also condemned the behaviour of the primary undercover officer who, at the direction of the operation’s overseers, discouraged Nuttall and Korody from seeking outside spiritual guidance and convinced them he was a member of a powerful international terrorist group that would likely kill them if they failed to follow through.

“He was their leader and they were his disciples,” said Bruce, who stayed the proceedings, which threw out the convictions and allowed the couple to walk free after more than three years behind bars.

The government is appealing the decision and still firmly believes that the only party that did anything wrong here were the methadone users who hardly did anything. And for their minimal contributions to the RCMP's master plan, the Crown is hoping to get a second chance at putting these two away for the rest of their lives.

Judge Bruce's statement when tossing the charges should be repeated on this side of the border, where the FBI seems to expend a majority of its anti-terrorism time and energy pushing reluctant, inept, mostly-incapable people into becoming the bumbling, sacrificial figureheads of ISIS: West.

“The world has enough terrorists. We do not need the police to create more.”

There appears to be no shortage of legitimate (so to speak…) criminal activity for law enforcement to pursue and investigate. And yet, given the choice, they'd rather craft both criminals and criminal activity from the ground up, scoring easy goals against unguarded nets -- making the world a little less safe while ensuring their budgets are never endangered.

from the MADE-WITH-PRIDE-IN-THE-USA! dept

The New York Times is taking a look at the FBI's battle against terrorism (not the first time it's done this) -- namely, its near-total reliance on sting operations to round up would-be terrorists. As the Times' Eric Lichtblau points out, stings used to be a last-resort tactic. Now, it's standard operating procedure. Two out of every three terrorism prosecutions begin with undercover agents nudging citizens and immigrants toward acts of violence and "material support." In some cases, the FBI agents are doing all the work themselves.

The FBI, of course, maintains that these terrorists would have acted on their own without the agency's intercession -- even though it seems to be placing a rather heavy finger on the scale.

While F.B.I. officials say they are careful to avoid illegally entrapping suspects, their undercover operatives are far from bystanders. In recent investigations from Florida to California, agents have helped people suspected of being extremists acquire weapons, scope out bombing targets and find the best routes to Syria to join the Islamic State, records show.

According to the agency, this stuff that looks like entrapment is nothing more than expedience.

“We’re not going to wait for the person to mobilize on his own time line,” said Michael B. Steinbach, who leads the F.B.I.’s national security branch. He added that the F.B.I. could not afford to “just sit and wait knowing the individual is actively plotting.”

I guess this all depends on your definition of "actively plotting." In cases we've covered here (and mentioned in the NYT article), federal agents have done everything from script and film "declaration of intent" videos to purchase all of the supplies needed for a "terrorist attack" they planned from start to finish.

While the FBI maintains it's doing nothing wrong, former FBI agents and intelligence community members aren't so sure.

“They’re manufacturing terrorism cases,” said Michael German, a former undercover agent with the F.B.I. who researches national security law at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice. In many of the recent prosecutions, he said, “these people are five steps away from being a danger to the United States.”

Karen J. Greenberg, the director of the Center on National Security at Fordham University, said undercover operations had become the norm for the F.B.I. in the most recent Islamic State cases, with little debate or understanding of how the bureau actually conducts its investigations, especially its online stings.

“I think the F.B.I. is really going down the wrong path with a lot of these ISIS cases,” she said…

When pressed to defend aggressive sting operations, FBI officials fall back on one their favorite scapegoats: encryption.

“When the bad guys turn to encrypted areas, we’re dark, and the only way to gain a better understanding of what we’re up against may be through an undercover,” Mr. Steinbach said.

But exactly how much terrorism is this stopping? There's no way to gauge the effectiveness of these tactics other than to count up successful prosecutions, as the FBI likes to do. What the FBI says is the "least intrusive" method of fighting terrorism often appears to be nothing more than padding the stats. As long as the FBI can continue to chalk up terrorism prosecutions, it can avail itself of a nearly-bottomless well of funding. The agency has shifted its focus to intelligence rather than law enforcement since 2001, and nothing brings in the bucks like counterterrorism efforts.

Does it make us safer? That's also unquantifiable, although every day that goes by without a successful domestic terrorist attack could theoretically be added to the "win" column. But it's hard to believe these sting operations are actually taking credible threats out of circulation.

The FBI's tactics have a lot in common with the DEA/ATF's reliance on stash house robbery stings -- busts in which no actual drug dealers, weapons suppliers, weapons, or drugs are actually taken off the street. Everything inside the bogus stash houses exists only in the minds of the undercover agents. The only tangible aspect of the sting operations are the sentences handed down, the length of which is determined by the total amount of drugs federal agents say was "present" in the stash house that never existed and was never robbed.

Both "wars" being fought by law enforcement seem to be incredibly counterproductive. Four decades of drug warring has done almost nothing to stop the flow of illicit drugs into the country. What it has done, however, is turn the manufacturing countries into violent hellholes.

As for the War on Terror, the only terrorists being locked up appear to be those pushed and cajoled into acting out undercover agents' fantasies. The terrorist threat in other parts of the world remains almost unchanged, despite a decade-plus of FBI counterterrorist operations and CIA drone strikes. Here, too, there appears to be a certain amount of "looking busy" -- treadmill-like activity that does little to attack the threat but still guarantees a healthy budget year after year.

Judge Alan Furr must not like alleged terrorist sympathizers. Two accused murderers and a teacher charged with sexual misconduct involving a student who previously faced Judge Furr combined for less than half the amount set for Pruitt ($450,000).

Witnesses, friends and family members uniformly described Pruitt as a "child" - a teenager with an IQ of 51 who cannot tie his own shoes, soils his clothes, has little verbal skills and lacks the ability to distinguish reality from fantasy.

The FBI, which has never shown any reluctance to trumpet its ability to push mentally-challenged people towards acts of terrorism, doesn't have much to say about this particular bust. It seems content to let local law enforcement run with this one, bringing state charges rather than federal. But it's still behind the elevation of Pruitt from a guy who needs assistance using the restroom to a guy who provides assistance to enemies of the United States.

Chief Investigator Tommy Dixon testified, reading from an FBI transcript of a four-hour interview on Nov. 13 with Pruitt, that the teenager expressed sympathy with Islam and shared information on how to construct bombs that he obtained from Inspire, an online magazine linked to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. To access the information, Pruitt referred them to a Wicr [sic] account, an encrypted instant messaging application.

Dixon said Pruitt had told the FBI "he would be happy" if acts of terrorism were carried out. "He felt it would be understandable," he said. He also suggested targets for terrorism, including the CIA headquarters, police stations and "big events" such as football games, Dixon said.

Beyond quoting from FBI interview transcripts, local prosecutors and law enforcement have said nothing about the case. They claim they can't jeopardize an ongoing information. But it appears they may not actually be in possession of much more than what the FBI has handed them, which may not be everything it has.

Under repeated questions from Pruitt's attorney Gibson Holladay, Dixon said his testimony came from the FBI transcript and not any first hand evidence. Holladay also questioned the logic of charging Pruitt with soliciting material support for a terrorist act by reading the statute and asking if Pruitt had provided a safe house, or false documents, or money, or transportation to terrorists. Dixon said he had no knowledge of whether he had or hadn't. Prosecutors objected to the questions.

"All you've got is Peyton's statement, right?" Holladay said. "You couldn't tell me if Peyton contacted Santa Claus or a terrorist, can you? Was it a bomb or a recipe for banana pudding? You don't know, do you?"

It certainly looks like the FBI realized it has a potential PR nightmare on its hands and somehow persuaded the locals to take the case. The agency is refusing to answer any questions, referring all queries to the St. Clair County District Attorney's office.

The few things local prosecutors have actually said -- that aren't direct quotes from FBI paperwork -- have been completely ridiculous.

Dixon said in his testimony that the FBI is still reviewing Pruitt's computer. But several of Minor's questions suggested other evidence. During Waldrop's testimony, Minor asked if she would be surprised to learn Pruitt had used an encrypted website, she said yes.

Reading statements, he asked, "Would it surprise you that he can quote the Koran?" She said yes.

Both perfectly legal acts. I use an "encrypted website." (This apparently refers to Wickr, suggesting prosecutors really have no idea what they're actually dealing with.) I use Wickr and can quote from religious texts (even the unpopular ones). So what? Even combined, these two things add up to nothing. But these prosecutors are trying desperately to make both acts sound ominous and supportive of their assertions that an 18-year-old incapable of tying his own shoelaces posed a legitimate threat to those around him and, indeed, the security of the nation.

Thanks to the same judge who refused to lower Pruitt's bail, prosecutors won't have to face any tough questions in the immediate future.

A St. Clair County judge sent the case of a teenager accused of soliciting support for a terrorist act onto a grand jury as part of a two-hour preliminary hearing in Pell City today.

This is the normal chain of events for serious felonies in Alabama, but one that will allow the prosecutors to present the FBI's evidence without being challenged by incredulous defense attorneys or distracted by the sight of the defendant silently "rocking back and forth" while the next 1-10 years of his life are discussed.

From here, it looks as though the FBI has finally developed a sense of shame and has chosen to ditch this turdball with local prosecutors. Unfortunately, its sense of shame hasn't compelled it to drop the case or otherwise dissuade far-too-enthusiastic prosecutors from pursuing this further. Both ISIS and the FBI have a fondness for "useful idiots," but neither should actually find anything useful in a person who's mentally unable to handle their own bodily functions, much less contribute to a terrorist group in any meaningful way.

from the 2016-Goal:-Stay-the-Course dept

Emanuel L. Lutchman, 25, was arrested and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), a designated foreign terrorist organization. The charge carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

According to the complaint, Lutchman had big, violent plans for New Year's Eve.

LUTCHMAN discussed with CS-2 [FBI informant] doing assassinations and using a pressure cooker bomb. LUTCHMAN said that he wanted to execute the plan so they could be "in and out," noting that they should make it "quiet and simple" so they can go about doing what they need to do to make hijra [leave the US and travel to Syria]. He also said that, after the operation, "they're going to be hunting for us," meaning that law enforcement authorities would be seeking to capture them. CS-2 asked LUTCHMAN if they would use a knife in the event they could not use a pressure cooker bomb or firearm(s).

While Lutchman may have had big plans, he really didn't seem to have any of the necessary ingredients. He had occasional contact with a self-professed ISIL member overseas, but 99% of his planning was done with the assistance of three FBI informants. While he did profess a desire to perform an act of terrorism, nearly everything he needed to carry this out was going to need to be obtained from someone else.

LUTCHMAN stated that they would use knives during the attack, noting that he knew someone with a machete and that his wife has a dagger.

And:

LUTCHMAN stated that they would need to wear masks during the operation so they would not get caught by law enforcement authorities, noting that he had a "brother" who would sell the masks for $5.

Do you really need a "connect" for ski masks? I mean, maybe in Arizona. But upstate New York?

Both of these "sources" failed to produce the needed items, so Lutchman and an FBI informant headed to the nation's largest terrorist outfitter, Walmart. Even with the retail giant's famous low prices, Lutchman still needed seed money for his foray into terrorism. Fortunately, the FBI was there to help.

In the evening on or about December 29, 2015, LUTCHMAN met with CS-2 During the meeting, LUTCHMAN and CS-2 went to a Walmart store on Hudson Avenue in Rochester, New York, to purchase supplies for the operation. While there, they purchased 2 black ski masks, zip-ties, 2 knives, a machete, duct tape, ammonia and latex gloves. Due to the fact that LUTCHMAN did not have any funds with him at the store, CS-2 paid approximately $40 for these items.

Had it been left to Lutchman to carry out this attack, he may have been able to come up with a knife or two. The $5 ski masks apparently would have been out of his price range.

To be sure, Lutchman did make plenty of disturbing statements to the FBI informants, as well as to the overseas provocateur. He may truly have desired to commit an act of violence. But it does seem apparent he was pretty much incapable of moving forward with his plans on his own. Maybe he was just looking for a few people who would listen to him rant and never call him on his bullshit -- a position filled by competently by the three FBI informants.

The fact that he couldn't even come up with the $40 needed to fund a two-man knife attack makes the charge of "material support" somewhat laughable. Perhaps that's why the complaint makes it clear the "material support" being "provided" by Lutchman was very specific -- and, presumably, of limited use.

Attempt to provide material support and resources, namely, himself as personnel and services, to a designated foreign terrorist organization…

"Himself" being the only thing anyone could count on Lutchman being in possession of when the time came to carry out the attack.

Then there's Lutchman's rap sheet:

EMANUEL L. LUTCHMAN is a 25~year old United States citizen, who currently resides in Rochester, New York. He is a self~professed Muslim convert with a criminal history dating back to approximately 2006 (which includes a New York state conviction for Robbery 2 from 2006, for which he served approximately 5 years in prison), as well as previous state Mental Hygiene arrests.

The mental hygiene arrests suggest Lutchman could be a dangerous person -- not because of his allegiance to ISIL -- but in general. Mental hygiene arrests occur when a person is considered to be a danger to themselves or others. He may have been a threat, thanks to his mental issues, but a terrorist? Certainly, the mental instability could have made Lutchman much more susceptible to outside suggestions that he commit violence, but his arrest record suggests Lutchman didn't have the mental (and, apparently, financial) capacity to provide much "support" for the Islamic State's violent aims.

It may be safer now that Lutchman is off the streets, but this arrest doesn't really gain us any ground in the War on Terrorism. A majority of the FBI's busts have been just as dubious, suggesting the agency values quantity over quality when it comes to arresting suspected terrorists.